Maury Markowitz
Member
Just came across this:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1dn745z/a_story_from_vietnam/
Great story! I see a number of things wrong here:
1) if this is, as suggested, a crash site, what happened to all the other trees? They are tightly packed everywhere, and then this managed to fall in a location with only two?
2) More of the photo is foggy, especially the upper section. Even the trees around the object are fogged. Yet the object seems very clear indeed. To me this yells "montage". It looks like a photo of a small construction site or LV that someone plopped an object on top of.
But now I need someone a lot more familiar with classic film photography to chime in here.
The story relates that this was taken with a Nikon F, and it's in the 60s, so the 105 mm lens they refer to could only be the f2.5 Nikkor-P. But this is a lens for portrait photography, not for long shots. ~5 m seems to be its sweet spot.
The story clearly relates that they had to stay high and away from the object or the Huey would have problems. Yet this image does not look high or far. It also shows no depth-of-field issues, everything is relatively focussed, yet it's being shot from a helicopter so they would have to have a really fast shutter speed to eliminate any signs of motion, which would thus require a big aperture setting and that would give lots of depth-of-field?
I just don't know enough about film : is this photo something that could be made from a distant helicopter using a portrait lens?
The story
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/1dn745z/a_story_from_vietnam/
Great story! I see a number of things wrong here:
1) if this is, as suggested, a crash site, what happened to all the other trees? They are tightly packed everywhere, and then this managed to fall in a location with only two?
2) More of the photo is foggy, especially the upper section. Even the trees around the object are fogged. Yet the object seems very clear indeed. To me this yells "montage". It looks like a photo of a small construction site or LV that someone plopped an object on top of.
But now I need someone a lot more familiar with classic film photography to chime in here.
The story relates that this was taken with a Nikon F, and it's in the 60s, so the 105 mm lens they refer to could only be the f2.5 Nikkor-P. But this is a lens for portrait photography, not for long shots. ~5 m seems to be its sweet spot.
The story clearly relates that they had to stay high and away from the object or the Huey would have problems. Yet this image does not look high or far. It also shows no depth-of-field issues, everything is relatively focussed, yet it's being shot from a helicopter so they would have to have a really fast shutter speed to eliminate any signs of motion, which would thus require a big aperture setting and that would give lots of depth-of-field?
I just don't know enough about film : is this photo something that could be made from a distant helicopter using a portrait lens?
The story